Republican propaganda? It is from one of Direckshun's "legitimate" news sources, but Drudge also links to it.

So is it a real news story if Direckshun links to a CNBC story, and not if Drudge does?

From looking at his page, it does not appear Drudge writes anything. They are links to other sites. I see links to CNBC, Politico, Foxnews, WSJ, etc.

Are these stories no longer real news stories because Drudge links to them?

Drudge absolutely leans to the right, and he provides links to stories that support his point of view. Just like the fact that Direckshun is a shill for the left, and posts links and articles hear that support his point of view.

Drudge is not a source per say, he is a collection of links to other sources. Each story and source should be judged on its own merit, not whether Drudge, or Direckshun, think it is a real news story.

Drudge writes very little. At time the headlines may be posted on Drudge slightly differently than the OP.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

Instead of constantly bitching about the Drudge Report, why don't you just create your own left-wing version, and call it the Direckshun Report. I'm sure liberals everywhere will applaud your great knowledge, and appreciate your links to "reputable news sources."

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.

More crucially to my point:

Quote:

Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

Drudge's problem is twofold:

1. He is a Republican propaganda outlet, presenting selective news only if it favors the Republican agenda. So while sometimes Drudge will cherry pick reliable information (such as the CNBC piece), he's doing just that: cherry picking. News of similar or greater weight does not get the full "Drudge treatment" if it does not play into the Republican narrative.

His other problem is pointed out by mcchiefsguy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Look at the sources for those headlines:

Washington Times
Daily Caller
CNBC
Weekly Standard

Yup, yup, and yup.

While I have nothing against CNBC, this is common practice on Drudge, and it's honestly the exact same formula they use on Fox News: place nuggets of reliable information in a sea of hyperpartisan bullshit.

1. He is a Republican propaganda outlet, presenting selective news only if it favors the Republican agenda. So while sometimes Drudge will cherry pick reliable information (such as the CNBC piece), he's doing just that: cherry picking. News of similar or greater weight does not get the full "Drudge treatment" if it does not play into the Republican narrative.

His other problem is pointed out by mcchiefsguy:

Yup, yup, and yup.

While I have nothing against CNBC, this is common practice on Drudge, and it's honestly the exact same formula they use on Fox News. Place nuggets of reliable information in a sea of hyperpartisan bullshit. Altogether, it creates an air of legitimacy when it's anything but.

This would carry much greater weight if Drudge was actually editing the stories, or altering them in some way. He presents links from a variety of sources, and he makes no claims at neutrality.

If he were claiming to be unbiased, perhaps your points would have more weight, but as it as, Drudge is just a collection of links to various news stories. The stories themselves do not become propaganda just because Drudge happens to like them and shares them on the internet.

Each source should be considered on its own merits, and not lumped into some "Drudge Propaganda" conspiracy.

Of course, if Rachel Maddow had a site and did what Drudge does, you would be singing her praises from the mountaintops, because she is a respectable journalist (not really, she is just a raging MSNBCer, but I know how you love to pretend she is unbiased).

There's a difference between leaning and shoveling bullshit for your cause.

The Wall Street Journal leans right.

Drudge is a bullshit factory in single-minded service to the Republican Party.

What bullshit does he create? He does not write anything. There are just internet links. People can read for themselves and decide what to think. You make it sound like Drudge is some kind of maniac brain washer, when all he really is is a geeky conservative who compiles a bunch of links on a website.

So, if the Wall Street Journal leans right, publishes a story, and Drudge links to it, what happens to the integrity of the story? (Here's a hint....nothing, since Drudge had nothing to do with the creation of the actual piece in question.)

Should CNBC tell Drudge to stop linking to their stories because it destroys their credibility? Do you see how silly that is?

This would carry much greater weight if Drudge was actually editing the stories, or altering them in some way. He presents links from a variety of sources, and he makes no claims at neutrality.

If he were claiming to be unbiased, perhaps your points would have more weight, but as it as, Drudge is just a collection of links to various news stories. The stories themselves do not become propaganda just because Drudge happens to like them and shares them on the internet.

Each source should be considered on its own merits, and not lumped into some "Drudge Propaganda" conspiracy.

Good post. I disagree with it, obviously, but I appreciate the evident effort. Rep.

Drudge makes no claims at neutrality, that's true, but his proponents do. All over this thread you have people jumping in front of the bullet for him, and people like Sean Hannity claim, and I quote, that Drudge is an oasis of reliable information. So you really do have people like pete who believe they're getting the straight scoop. I dare you to try to get pete to admit anything different.

It's just not true. Drudge is a straight partisan website, a case I don't think even you, Mr. Everything Obama's Done Is Bad, could disagree with.

Even look at you in your reply:

Quote:

Drudge is just a collection of links to various news stories.

No.

That is not what Drudge "just" is. Drudge is not a passive linking to various stories across the web. He is an active political agent that is involved in isolating, decontextualizing, and distorting information in a way that sells the Republican Brand.

What bullshit does he create? He does not write anything. There are just internet links. People can read for themselves and decide what to think. You make it sound like Drudge is some kind of maniac brain washer, when all he really is is a geeky conservative who compiles a bunch of links on a website.

Do you believe that Drudge links almost exclusively to material that aids the Republican Party?

Do you believe that there are millions of people that rely on him as their primary provider of news?

Do you believe that selective exposure can have a profound psychological effect?

So, if the Wall Street Journal leans right, publishes a story, and Drudge links to it, what happens to the integrity of the story? (Here's a hint....nothing, since Drudge had nothing to do with the creation of the actual piece in question.)

The whole point is, Drudge isn't linking the story unless it feeds the Republican narrative.